Already in 1996, when the CEO took office, the labor relations in the union changed to the "favorite" system, when she was marked on the "blacklist" and was blocked from opportunities for promotion, training, and additions to positions. Dr. Rosen's responses to all her inquiries and requests to move forward were met with negation and disregard, and later on, the negative attitude turned into "real insults and abuse." Dr. Rosen dragged her for a decade with "false promises" about increasing her position, and even claimed that her role was "unnecessary" and that it should have been carried out by way of outsourcing. The plaintiff felt that the CEO had let her "reason" in a position that prevented her from any professional and salaried development, and in the expectation that she would give up and leave.
At the management meeting held on September 26, 2017, the plaintiff was subjected to "cross-examination" in a "disrespectful, one-sided hearing," which she claimed was intended to "thwart her just claims, as personal revenge." At this meeting, Dr. Rosen admitted that she was the one who appointed employees to positions at her sole discretion, and that "there are people in the union who have more background, education, skills, and experience than Sylvie." Also at the same meeting, Dr. Rosen said: "If a person feels that he is not getting what he deserves and is blessed with talents, he can leave for another place of work," and thus, according to the plaintiff, "the masks have come off" and Dr. Rosen "simply said that she was waiting for me to leave." The plaintiff claims that throughout her years at the union, she did not receive a single negative feedback, only positive feedback, and the CEO "simply ignored me and hoped that I would disappear."
After the management meeting in October 2017, "decisions to take action" were made, according to the plaintiff, to "take revenge on me," "disparage my position," and "to reduce my status in the union." Among other things, it was decided to cut the plaintiff's overtime hours, and she was required to submit daily reports on the performance of work on an hourly basis, a demand that was not required of any other employee in the union and was intended to "humiliate and diminish me."